[whatwg] X-UA-Compatible, X-* headers, validators, etc.

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Mon Oct 12 00:24:37 PDT 2009

Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Oct 10, 2009, at 08:20, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> I think the HTML5 requirement should be changed to allow any header in 
>> the Permanent Message Header Field Registry. Effectively, this would 
>> require either an RFC or an Open Standard. This seems just as good for 
>> HTML5's purposes as requiring an RFC.
> I disagree unless we really want to enable http-equiv as a way of 
> specifying browser-only HTTP header equivalents that intermediaries ignore.

I think that's an orthogonal discussion. Requiring "RFC" when the IETF 
requires something different appears to be a bug.

> ...
> As for X-UA-Compatible specifically, when Microsoft did it, it was 
> decried as a bad thing. Why does it become a good thing when Google does 
> it?
> ...

It doesn't.

> ...

BR, Julian

More information about the whatwg mailing list